One of the real problems I see with all these great communication technologies is that we seem to focus only on the benefits to the RECIPIENTS of information. Sure, if I can get a question answered correctly from some person I never met before, that's a great benefit.
But there's often real problems for the people on the other end. If I send a question out to 100 of my closest :-) friends, now I've taken up some time from each of them. What we're ending up with is incredible overload in e-mail and IM channels. Great if it saves YOU some work, but what about the 100 of us you grabbed time from? That's not trivial.
You can help us out, Andrew, by helping to articulate impact on everyone, and to see how we can address that. Otherwise we'll forever be adopting these new technologies and then abandoning them in an ever-shortening cycle.
Saqib Ali
· 2 years ago
Profession McAfee, A very interesting blog post indeed. I enjoyed reading it.
Can you give examples of Web 2.0 technologies that help Prediction Markets? Recently I ran into http://ideajam.net/. Would this be a Web 2.0 technology that help in gaining Collective Intelligence?
Thanks
Tom Mandel
· 2 years ago
This is just terrific; the four circles metaphor is of immediate utility in talking with clients and even in thinking about where the needs are in this market for new functionality and new software.
Two additional points: a) in addition to prediction markets, the outer circle is made valuable via enterprise social bookmarking and tagging, especially when integrated with social search; and b) unmentioned but clearly critical is the *dynamic nature* of these circles. In particular, colleagues surely must get into the 3d circle from the 4th circle and so forth towards the inner circle (though of course there are other routes as well). Your brief story of the Elysee Palace is an example. Here too, social bookmarking and tagging provides a rich field for new forms of stronger interaction.
Great stuff!
Kerry A Nitz
· 2 years ago
So where would you place Second Life in this framework? It seems to be getting a bit of a push in this area from IBM.
Chris McGrath
· 2 years ago
A table *and* concentric circles in a single blog post. Always a good formula. ;-) Thanks for the usual clear thinking, and you're right -- this will absolutely help me and others to frame discussions on E2.0.
Lee
· 2 years ago
Hi Andrew, first off, thank you for this blog, I really enjoy your in-depth thinking about this topics discussed.
One point I wanted to raise is that although I see where you're coming from in regards to wikis being the technology of choice for "strongly-tied collaborators," I think that Wikipedia is a great example of strangers coming together to produce something extremely useful. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction, or does this use of wikis apply more specifically to Enterprise 2.0 vis-a-vis the net at large?
Thanks again for this welcome refuge amidst a sea of whitenoise,
- Lee
Saqib Ali
· 2 years ago
The problems still remains is that employees haven't yet latched onto the idea that all this Enterprise 2.0 stuff is about enhancing relationships in a business.
In fact, Berlecon Research recently conducted an study of Web 2.0 adoption in Enterprise. They surveyed high racking officials from various companies in Germany with 100 or more employees. The results are very grim:
* 1/4th answered they don't know what web 2.0 is; and * 1/4th don't think that enterprise 2.0 will have any positive impact on their businesses.
So my question to Professor McAfee is how can we change this? Usually the Business Unit want the newer technology, while IT dept tries to hold back. But in this case, BUs are not latching on to a good technology, while IT is trying to push the technology.
G. Lance Strzok
· 2 months ago
This looks like an interesting comment, is there an update since this was about a year ago? I would love to see what the same survey would say or show now. -GLS
Stewart Mader
· 2 years ago
Andrew, This is excellent! One added point about wikis from my experience: if organizations keep them as open as possible, then not only will they reinforce strong connections, but they can help potential connections too if a person does a topic search and relevant wiki content is returned in the results.
This can ultimately help break down the barriers that have kept groups isolated from each other and unable to find out what other groups are working on and what tools they're using.
Incidentally, these are the same barriers that result in some organizations finding out they already have multiple wikis that have been set up by individual groups unbeknownst to each other. Because they understand the value of collaboration and emerging connections, these groups are often eager to move from their separate wikis to a single instance that flattens barriers and makes discovery easier.
Stewart
Jonas
· 2 years ago
Very interesting post, the bulls eye approach is very appetizing and it gives some structure to a field that has evolved from grassroot level without structure.
I do believe that comment #1 has an important point, an this relates to earlier research on Groupware made by Jonathan Grudin: Groupware and Social dynamics. There might be a disparity between work and benefit for example with web 2.0 tools. If critical mass isn't built up, the tools will lose in power etc.
Discussions on that would be interesting to see. They are maybe to found in earlier posts, just direct me there if that has alreday been covered.
Kristy
· 10 months ago
This is a very important point - I find the one thing that determines whether a new tool thrives or not is whether the critical mass accepts it, understands it, and uses it. Some of the best tools are still in infancy because many people just don't know about them, how to use them, or see the benefit in spending an hour of time with it. I think what needs to be discussed here is how (once the proper web 2.0 tool has been chosen) to get the population to know about it and use it.
Saqib Ali
· 2 years ago
@Lee: It is true that strangers have come together to produce the wikipedia. However in my experience most wikipedia contributors have restricted their contributions in their areas of expertise. There is no cross-pollination. And I am guilty of the same. I have contributed to the Cryptography section of Wikipedia. However I rarely see people from other Computer Security related area contributing to Cryptography, even though these fields are closely related. I think collaboration between similar fields will be helpful. And I think a blog for each major section will help in getting the contributors to collaborate.
Just a thought...
Geoff Ward
· 2 years ago
agree with all above, great piece. I like the bullseye and table too. A couple of things occur to me that helps people understand how to create and maintain a E2.0 organisation. 1. Make these social networks sustainable. Take team emergence (virtual teams)for instance, to maintain a virtual team, it may be required that team activities be made visible - emergent information. Also, the knock on benefits of this are productivity and innovation across teams. 2. Getting the underlying technology to a state that does not prevent/discourage working across org boundaries.
Ramses
· 1 year ago
In particulars colleagues surely must get into the 3D circle from the 5th circle and so forth towards the inner circle.
Terry
· 1 year ago
Very interesting and informative post, the bulls eye approach is very enlightening and it gives some structure to a field that has evolved from grassroot level without structure. I really enjoy your in-depth thinking about this topics discussed.
Michael Fulton
· 1 year ago
Very interesting post. I think you unknowingly hit on the answer to one of the common questions I have seen around the web lately.
I have seen lots of talk about the Dunbar Friend Limit of 150. People arguing that the Friend Limit is no longer in place because of Web 2.0 technologies, others arguing against that. But in my view, the 150 friend limit probably is still in place with Web 2.0, but it is in place for Strong connections. Where the technologies allow us to broaden our base exponentially in ways we never could before as you mention is in the weak and potential connections areas. Now we can quickly go way over 150 when it comes to weak connections that still add value.
Thanks for the writeup and the concept.
Christopher S. Rollyson
· 1 year ago
Andrew, thank you for a very insightful and useful post. I think one element that might be an interesting overlay is movement within the rings. IOW, based on the knowledge worker's personal interests or assignment, there will be constant movement of people (ties) from one ring to another. Let's say I'm a management consultant with a focus on social network strategy in a global firm. I have a new assignment in downstream petroleum, so I will be seeking people with oil/gas expertise or access (they will migrate inward). I just completed an engagement for a carmaker, so some of those ties will slip outward. Maybe another model could be the Bohr atom and electron energy levels.
Here's another idea: I think of two key elements in business relationships: the trunk and the leaves of the tree. The trunk is based on trust; these are relationships one keeps because high trust helps us to reduce risk. The leaves are expertise; we interact with these people because we request of fulfill the demand for expertise; this is a big part of the fluidity factor. This is more opportunistic. Each relationship in the grid (of rings) contains trust and expertise; trust is sticky.
Anyway, hope this might be useful to you.
Thanks again and cheers-
Anthony Bradley
· 11 months ago
Amidst all the approbation I'll inject some criticism (constructive I hope). In my experience there are a few flaws in the model. First, it is an oversimplification (which admittedly fits well in a blog post and easy to digest graphic) of relationships. There should be a mention of unbalanced relationships (which should be a goal of many E2.0 implementations). For example, with my blog I hope to build a strong between them and me (meaning they feel they know me well)but a very weak tie between me and them (I may not know them at all). This delivers the coveted leverage that E2.0 can deliver. It also doesn't distiguish between direct and indirect ties and the different behavioral dynamics of interactions (familiarization, handoffs, positioning, shared contribution, transactions, etc.) which have a greater impact on delivering an effective social solution. Third, I have not seen an exclusive relationship between the nature of the technology and the nature of the tie. The relationship is more between the nature of the implementation (purpose) and the tie.
srikantsharma
· 10 months ago
Andrew,
This is an excellent post - one point I would like to make is that I see the market well into the "hump" of the Web 2.0 / enterprise 2.0 adoption cycle (refer my blog post at www.srikantsharma.com). In fact, I am beginning to think that we may have no more than 8-10 months before E2.0 becomes passe' - and we start talking Web 3.0 - with advanced functionality such as the semantic web, individual-level personalization, etc.
Thanks for an excellent post!
Jim D'Souza
· 6 months ago
the article on how to hit the enterprise bulls eye with simple examples is easy to understand and grasp. the language used is very simple and i am really greateful to Mr Andrew Sir for not using jargon or technical words due to which a complex subject like this is simple to understand ,grasp and retain.
At the same time Sir I would request you to write similar articles on www.managementparadise.com. As it would be read by millions of viewers especially students as i and my friends always log to that site and it will be useful for us to get all information from one place
thanking you yours faithfully Jim D'Souza student
onlineprinting
· 5 months ago
This is a very interesting argument in favor of social networking software being used in the workplace. I have been invited to join one of these sites for professional networking purposes as have my colleagues, but our company has put a block on such websites. From reading this, I can see the potential usefulness. My question is how big does a company need to be for this to be beneficial? Unless much can be accomplished in a very short time, the company would need to be large or profitable enough to pay for the additional time required.
Pankaj
· 4 months ago
Wonderful article. Professional discussion forums could be seen as another good way to exploit "Weak ties". You don't necessarily need to have a personal equation to simply go in there and add your input.
I like your image, and your thoughts are very insightful. If I were to point out a difference between our thoughts, (you presented this issue in your blog well before I began thinking about it) it would be that I encourage knowledge workers to use the wikis at their disposal to find potential colleagues. I suggest scrubbing the history page, who is watching (if available), and who is making frequent, large, and accurate edits. Those people are potentially worth reaching out too.
As always, thanks for taking the time to blog your thoughts and share. - GLS
G. Lance Strzok
· 2 months ago
@McAfee, @Michael Fulton,
Reading through some of the comments, I noticed the Dunbar debate, and wanted to weigh in on that. I would say that in a similar way that the hippocampus has been proven to enlarge in size with mental exercise, so too would our capacity to meaningfully connect with a larger number of people as we use Social Media tools to exercise that capacity.
All Comments
But there's often real problems for the people on the other end. If I send a question out to 100 of my closest :-) friends, now I've taken up some time from each of them. What we're ending up with is incredible overload in e-mail and IM channels. Great if it saves YOU some work, but what about the 100 of us you grabbed time from? That's not trivial.
You can help us out, Andrew, by helping to articulate impact on everyone, and to see how we can address that. Otherwise we'll forever be adopting these new technologies and then abandoning them in an ever-shortening cycle.
Can you give examples of Web 2.0 technologies that help Prediction Markets? Recently I ran into http://ideajam.net/. Would this be a Web 2.0 technology that help in gaining Collective Intelligence?
Thanks
Two additional points: a) in addition to prediction markets, the outer circle is made valuable via enterprise social bookmarking and tagging, especially when integrated with social search; and b) unmentioned but clearly critical is the *dynamic nature* of these circles. In particular, colleagues surely must get into the 3d circle from the 4th circle and so forth towards the inner circle (though of course there are other routes as well). Your brief story of the Elysee Palace is an example. Here too, social bookmarking and tagging provides a rich field for new forms of stronger interaction.
Great stuff!
One point I wanted to raise is that although I see where you're coming from in regards to wikis being the technology of choice for "strongly-tied collaborators," I think that Wikipedia is a great example of strangers coming together to produce something extremely useful. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction, or does this use of wikis apply more specifically to Enterprise 2.0 vis-a-vis the net at large?
Thanks again for this welcome refuge amidst a sea of whitenoise,
- Lee
In fact, Berlecon Research recently conducted an study of Web 2.0 adoption in Enterprise. They surveyed high racking officials from various companies in Germany with 100 or more employees. The results are very grim:
* 1/4th answered they don't know what web 2.0 is; and
* 1/4th don't think that enterprise 2.0 will have any positive impact on their businesses.
A representative of Berlecon Research discusses their finding in the following video presentation:
http://security-basics.blogspot.com/2007/11/ber...
So my question to Professor McAfee is how can we change this? Usually the Business Unit want the newer technology, while IT dept tries to hold back. But in this case, BUs are not latching on to a good technology, while IT is trying to push the technology.
-GLS
This is excellent! One added point about wikis from my experience: if organizations keep them as open as possible, then not only will they reinforce strong connections, but they can help potential connections too if a person does a topic search and relevant wiki content is returned in the results.
This can ultimately help break down the barriers that have kept groups isolated from each other and unable to find out what other groups are working on and what tools they're using.
Incidentally, these are the same barriers that result in some organizations finding out they already have multiple wikis that have been set up by individual groups unbeknownst to each other. Because they understand the value of collaboration and emerging connections, these groups are often eager to move from their separate wikis to a single instance that flattens barriers and makes discovery easier.
Stewart
I do believe that comment #1 has an important point, an this relates to earlier research on Groupware made by Jonathan Grudin: Groupware and Social dynamics. There might be a disparity between work and benefit for example with web 2.0 tools. If critical mass isn't built up, the tools will lose in power etc.
Discussions on that would be interesting to see. They are maybe to found in earlier posts, just direct me there if that has alreday been covered.
It is true that strangers have come together to produce the wikipedia. However in my experience most wikipedia contributors have restricted their contributions in their areas of expertise. There is no cross-pollination. And I am guilty of the same. I have contributed to the Cryptography section of Wikipedia. However I rarely see people from other Computer Security related area contributing to Cryptography, even though these fields are closely related. I think collaboration between similar fields will be helpful. And I think a blog for each major section will help in getting the contributors to collaborate.
Just a thought...
A couple of things occur to me that helps people understand how to create and maintain a E2.0 organisation.
1. Make these social networks sustainable. Take team emergence (virtual teams)for instance, to maintain a virtual team, it may be required that team activities be made visible - emergent information. Also, the knock on benefits of this are productivity and innovation across teams.
2. Getting the underlying technology to a state that does not prevent/discourage working across org boundaries.
I really enjoy your in-depth thinking about this topics discussed.
I have seen lots of talk about the Dunbar Friend Limit of 150. People arguing that the Friend Limit is no longer in place because of Web 2.0 technologies, others arguing against that. But in my view, the 150 friend limit probably is still in place with Web 2.0, but it is in place for Strong connections. Where the technologies allow us to broaden our base exponentially in ways we never could before as you mention is in the weak and potential connections areas. Now we can quickly go way over 150 when it comes to weak connections that still add value.
Thanks for the writeup and the concept.
Here's another idea: I think of two key elements in business relationships: the trunk and the leaves of the tree. The trunk is based on trust; these are relationships one keeps because high trust helps us to reduce risk. The leaves are expertise; we interact with these people because we request of fulfill the demand for expertise; this is a big part of the fluidity factor. This is more opportunistic. Each relationship in the grid (of rings) contains trust and expertise; trust is sticky.
Anyway, hope this might be useful to you.
Thanks again and cheers-
This is an excellent post - one point I would like to make is that I see the market well into the "hump" of the Web 2.0 / enterprise 2.0 adoption cycle (refer my blog post at www.srikantsharma.com). In fact, I am beginning to think that we may have no more than 8-10 months before E2.0 becomes passe' - and we start talking Web 3.0 - with advanced functionality such as the semantic web, individual-level personalization, etc.
Thanks for an excellent post!
At the same time Sir I would request you to write similar articles on www.managementparadise.com. As it would be read by millions of viewers especially students as i and my friends always log to that site and it will be useful for us to get all information from one place
thanking you
yours faithfully
Jim D'Souza
student
I find your article largely in agreement with my own observations. I have recently tried to describe some of this concept in http://gstrzok.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/forming...
I like your image, and your thoughts are very insightful. If I were to point out a difference between our thoughts, (you presented this issue in your blog well before I began thinking about it) it would be that I encourage knowledge workers to use the wikis at their disposal to find potential colleagues. I suggest scrubbing the history page, who is watching (if available), and who is making frequent, large, and accurate edits. Those people are potentially worth reaching out too.
As always, thanks for taking the time to blog your thoughts and share. - GLS
Reading through some of the comments, I noticed the Dunbar debate, and wanted to weigh in on that. I would say that in a similar way that the hippocampus has been proven to enlarge in size with mental exercise, so too would our capacity to meaningfully connect with a larger number of people as we use Social Media tools to exercise that capacity.
- GLS